Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1401 | control, N = 711 | treatment, N = 691 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 138 | 50.91 ± 12.56 (25 - 74) | 51.44 ± 12.37 (25 - 74) | 50.37 ± 12.82 (28 - 73) | 0.620 |
Unknown | 2 | 2 | 0 | ||
gender | 140 | 0.916 | |||
f | 107 (76%) | 54 (76%) | 53 (77%) | ||
m | 33 (24%) | 17 (24%) | 16 (23%) | ||
occupation | 140 | 0.641 | |||
day_training | 2 (1.4%) | 2 (2.8%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 17 (12%) | 8 (11%) | 9 (13%) | ||
homemaker | 12 (8.6%) | 5 (7.0%) | 7 (10%) | ||
other | 2 (1.4%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.9%) | ||
part_time | 25 (18%) | 12 (17%) | 13 (19%) | ||
retired | 38 (27%) | 19 (27%) | 19 (28%) | ||
self_employ | 7 (5.0%) | 4 (5.6%) | 3 (4.3%) | ||
student | 2 (1.4%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.9%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (1.4%) | 1 (1.4%) | 1 (1.4%) | ||
unemploy | 33 (24%) | 20 (28%) | 13 (19%) | ||
marital | 140 | 0.817 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (0.7%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.4%) | ||
divore | 15 (11%) | 10 (14%) | 5 (7.2%) | ||
in_relationship | 4 (2.9%) | 2 (2.8%) | 2 (2.9%) | ||
married | 39 (28%) | 20 (28%) | 19 (28%) | ||
none | 70 (50%) | 33 (46%) | 37 (54%) | ||
seperation | 3 (2.1%) | 2 (2.8%) | 1 (1.4%) | ||
widow | 8 (5.7%) | 4 (5.6%) | 4 (5.8%) | ||
edu | 140 | 0.249 | |||
bachelor | 35 (25%) | 13 (18%) | 22 (32%) | ||
diploma | 26 (19%) | 17 (24%) | 9 (13%) | ||
hd_ad | 4 (2.9%) | 3 (4.2%) | 1 (1.4%) | ||
postgraduate | 12 (8.6%) | 5 (7.0%) | 7 (10%) | ||
primary | 9 (6.4%) | 3 (4.2%) | 6 (8.7%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 16 (11%) | 9 (13%) | 7 (10%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 32 (23%) | 19 (27%) | 13 (19%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 6 (4.3%) | 2 (2.8%) | 4 (5.8%) | ||
fam_income | 140 | 0.981 | |||
10001_12000 | 6 (4.3%) | 2 (2.8%) | 4 (5.8%) | ||
12001_14000 | 7 (5.0%) | 3 (4.2%) | 4 (5.8%) | ||
14001_16000 | 7 (5.0%) | 3 (4.2%) | 4 (5.8%) | ||
16001_18000 | 4 (2.9%) | 2 (2.8%) | 2 (2.9%) | ||
18001_20000 | 6 (4.3%) | 4 (5.6%) | 2 (2.9%) | ||
20001_above | 27 (19%) | 15 (21%) | 12 (17%) | ||
2001_4000 | 20 (14%) | 11 (15%) | 9 (13%) | ||
4001_6000 | 14 (10%) | 6 (8.5%) | 8 (12%) | ||
6001_8000 | 12 (8.6%) | 7 (9.9%) | 5 (7.2%) | ||
8001_10000 | 10 (7.1%) | 4 (5.6%) | 6 (8.7%) | ||
below_2000 | 27 (19%) | 14 (20%) | 13 (19%) | ||
medication | 140 | 123 (88%) | 62 (87%) | 61 (88%) | 0.845 |
onset_duration | 137 | 15.23 ± 10.25 (0 - 56) | 15.87 ± 10.92 (0 - 56) | 14.55 ± 9.51 (0 - 35) | 0.452 |
Unknown | 3 | 0 | 3 | ||
onset_age | 135 | 35.90 ± 13.95 (10 - 65) | 35.40 ± 12.70 (10 - 61) | 36.42 ± 15.23 (14 - 65) | 0.673 |
Unknown | 5 | 2 | 3 | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1401 | control, N = 711 | treatment, N = 691 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 140 | 3.20 ± 1.18 (1 - 5) | 3.27 ± 1.23 (1 - 5) | 3.13 ± 1.12 (1 - 5) | 0.492 |
recovery_stage_b | 140 | 17.97 ± 2.78 (8 - 24) | 17.90 ± 2.93 (8 - 24) | 18.04 ± 2.64 (13 - 24) | 0.764 |
ras_confidence | 140 | 30.03 ± 5.14 (15 - 45) | 29.83 ± 4.88 (15 - 40) | 30.23 ± 5.42 (18 - 45) | 0.646 |
ras_willingness | 140 | 11.79 ± 2.09 (5 - 15) | 11.66 ± 2.07 (5 - 15) | 11.93 ± 2.12 (7 - 15) | 0.455 |
ras_goal | 140 | 17.39 ± 3.09 (11 - 25) | 17.14 ± 2.89 (11 - 24) | 17.64 ± 3.28 (11 - 25) | 0.343 |
ras_reliance | 140 | 13.20 ± 2.95 (5 - 20) | 12.99 ± 2.81 (5 - 18) | 13.42 ± 3.08 (7 - 20) | 0.385 |
ras_domination | 140 | 9.92 ± 2.42 (3 - 15) | 10.17 ± 2.32 (3 - 15) | 9.67 ± 2.51 (3 - 15) | 0.221 |
symptom | 140 | 29.98 ± 9.37 (14 - 56) | 29.93 ± 9.61 (14 - 55) | 30.03 ± 9.19 (15 - 56) | 0.950 |
slof_work | 140 | 22.51 ± 4.78 (10 - 30) | 22.85 ± 4.38 (13 - 30) | 22.17 ± 5.16 (10 - 30) | 0.408 |
slof_relationship | 140 | 25.20 ± 6.03 (9 - 35) | 24.90 ± 6.05 (9 - 35) | 25.51 ± 6.05 (11 - 35) | 0.555 |
satisfaction | 140 | 20.58 ± 7.23 (5 - 35) | 19.99 ± 6.80 (5 - 33) | 21.19 ± 7.65 (5 - 35) | 0.327 |
mhc_emotional | 140 | 10.94 ± 3.81 (3 - 18) | 10.69 ± 3.69 (3 - 17) | 11.20 ± 3.95 (3 - 18) | 0.428 |
mhc_social | 140 | 15.08 ± 5.61 (5 - 30) | 14.75 ± 5.59 (5 - 30) | 15.42 ± 5.66 (5 - 29) | 0.480 |
mhc_psychological | 140 | 21.94 ± 6.48 (6 - 36) | 21.80 ± 6.11 (7 - 36) | 22.09 ± 6.88 (6 - 36) | 0.796 |
resilisnce | 140 | 16.69 ± 4.72 (6 - 30) | 16.25 ± 4.20 (6 - 24) | 17.13 ± 5.20 (6 - 30) | 0.274 |
social_provision | 140 | 13.56 ± 2.89 (5 - 20) | 13.11 ± 2.65 (5 - 20) | 14.03 ± 3.07 (5 - 20) | 0.060 |
els_value_living | 140 | 16.96 ± 3.17 (5 - 25) | 16.59 ± 2.94 (6 - 22) | 17.35 ± 3.37 (5 - 25) | 0.159 |
els_life_fulfill | 140 | 12.75 ± 3.44 (4 - 20) | 12.37 ± 3.28 (5 - 19) | 13.14 ± 3.59 (4 - 20) | 0.182 |
els | 140 | 29.71 ± 6.01 (9 - 45) | 28.96 ± 5.53 (11 - 38) | 30.49 ± 6.42 (9 - 45) | 0.131 |
social_connect | 140 | 26.46 ± 9.51 (8 - 48) | 26.73 ± 9.24 (8 - 48) | 26.19 ± 9.84 (8 - 48) | 0.736 |
shs_agency | 140 | 14.36 ± 5.17 (3 - 24) | 13.97 ± 4.77 (3 - 21) | 14.77 ± 5.57 (3 - 24) | 0.365 |
shs_pathway | 140 | 16.06 ± 4.06 (4 - 24) | 15.75 ± 3.87 (5 - 24) | 16.39 ± 4.25 (4 - 24) | 0.349 |
shs | 140 | 30.43 ± 8.84 (7 - 48) | 29.72 ± 8.27 (8 - 45) | 31.16 ± 9.40 (7 - 48) | 0.337 |
esteem | 140 | 12.61 ± 1.65 (9 - 20) | 12.65 ± 1.62 (9 - 18) | 12.58 ± 1.68 (10 - 20) | 0.808 |
mlq_search | 140 | 14.84 ± 3.52 (3 - 21) | 14.70 ± 3.32 (6 - 21) | 14.97 ± 3.74 (3 - 21) | 0.656 |
mlq_presence | 140 | 13.51 ± 4.21 (3 - 21) | 13.38 ± 3.80 (4 - 21) | 13.65 ± 4.63 (3 - 21) | 0.704 |
mlq | 140 | 28.35 ± 6.94 (6 - 42) | 28.08 ± 6.26 (10 - 40) | 28.62 ± 7.61 (6 - 42) | 0.648 |
empower | 140 | 19.29 ± 4.28 (6 - 30) | 18.97 ± 4.17 (11 - 30) | 19.61 ± 4.40 (6 - 30) | 0.380 |
ismi_resistance | 140 | 14.55 ± 2.53 (5 - 20) | 14.48 ± 2.21 (10 - 20) | 14.62 ± 2.84 (5 - 20) | 0.737 |
ismi_discrimation | 140 | 11.59 ± 3.15 (5 - 20) | 11.96 ± 3.02 (5 - 20) | 11.22 ± 3.26 (5 - 20) | 0.165 |
sss_affective | 140 | 9.92 ± 3.55 (3 - 18) | 10.03 ± 3.51 (3 - 18) | 9.81 ± 3.60 (3 - 18) | 0.719 |
sss_behavior | 140 | 9.66 ± 3.77 (3 - 18) | 9.89 ± 3.85 (3 - 18) | 9.43 ± 3.70 (3 - 18) | 0.480 |
sss_cognitive | 140 | 8.19 ± 3.74 (3 - 18) | 8.24 ± 3.77 (3 - 18) | 8.14 ± 3.73 (3 - 18) | 0.882 |
sss | 140 | 27.78 ± 10.21 (9 - 54) | 28.15 ± 10.26 (9 - 54) | 27.39 ± 10.22 (9 - 54) | 0.660 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.27 | 0.138 | 3.00, 3.54 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.137 | 0.196 | -0.522, 0.247 | 0.485 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.002 | 0.230 | -0.453, 0.450 | 0.994 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.535 | 0.326 | -0.104, 1.17 | 0.104 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.339 | 17.2, 18.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.142 | 0.483 | -0.805, 1.09 | 0.769 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.377 | 0.525 | -1.41, 0.651 | 0.474 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.888 | 0.743 | -0.567, 2.34 | 0.235 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.8 | 0.617 | 28.6, 31.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.401 | 0.878 | -1.32, 2.12 | 0.649 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.694 | 0.727 | -0.732, 2.12 | 0.344 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.14 | 1.029 | -0.873, 3.16 | 0.271 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.7 | 0.249 | 11.2, 12.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.266 | 0.354 | -0.429, 0.960 | 0.455 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.486 | 0.294 | -1.06, 0.091 | 0.103 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.713 | 0.416 | -0.103, 1.53 | 0.092 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.1 | 0.374 | 16.4, 17.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.497 | 0.533 | -0.548, 1.54 | 0.353 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.461 | 0.483 | -1.41, 0.486 | 0.343 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.63 | 0.684 | 0.286, 2.97 | 0.020 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.038 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.0 | 0.347 | 12.3, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.434 | 0.495 | -0.535, 1.40 | 0.381 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.335 | 0.393 | -0.435, 1.10 | 0.397 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.04 | 0.556 | -0.049, 2.13 | 0.066 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.038 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.282 | 9.62, 10.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.502 | 0.401 | -1.29, 0.284 | 0.213 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.321 | 0.408 | -1.12, 0.478 | 0.433 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.44 | 0.577 | 0.309, 2.57 | 0.015 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 29.9 | 1.116 | 27.7, 32.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.099 | 1.590 | -3.02, 3.22 | 0.950 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.365 | 1.062 | -2.45, 1.72 | 0.732 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.29 | 1.503 | -4.23, 1.66 | 0.395 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.8 | 0.566 | 21.7, 24.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.671 | 0.807 | -2.25, 0.910 | 0.407 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.345 | 0.640 | -1.60, 0.910 | 0.592 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.742 | 0.905 | -1.03, 2.52 | 0.415 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.9 | 0.711 | 23.5, 26.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.606 | 1.013 | -1.38, 2.59 | 0.551 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.880 | 0.785 | -2.42, 0.659 | 0.267 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.55 | 1.110 | -0.621, 3.73 | 0.166 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 20.0 | 0.861 | 18.3, 21.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.20 | 1.226 | -1.20, 3.61 | 0.328 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.555 | 1.033 | -1.47, 2.58 | 0.593 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.706 | 1.462 | -2.16, 3.57 | 0.631 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.7 | 0.450 | 9.81, 11.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.513 | 0.641 | -0.743, 1.77 | 0.425 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.273 | 0.484 | -0.676, 1.22 | 0.575 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.083 | 0.685 | -1.43, 1.26 | 0.903 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 14.7 | 0.684 | 13.4, 16.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.674 | 0.974 | -1.23, 2.58 | 0.490 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.644 | 0.840 | -1.00, 2.29 | 0.446 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.127 | 1.189 | -2.46, 2.20 | 0.915 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.8 | 0.794 | 20.2, 23.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.284 | 1.131 | -1.93, 2.50 | 0.802 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.443 | 0.953 | -1.42, 2.31 | 0.644 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.238 | 1.348 | -2.40, 2.88 | 0.861 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.3 | 0.549 | 15.2, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.877 | 0.782 | -0.656, 2.41 | 0.264 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.107 | 0.688 | -1.24, 1.46 | 0.877 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.59 | 0.973 | -0.319, 3.50 | 0.107 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.034 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.342 | 12.4, 13.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.916 | 0.487 | -0.038, 1.87 | 0.062 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.525 | 0.454 | -1.41, 0.364 | 0.251 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.735 | 0.642 | -0.523, 1.99 | 0.256 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.041 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.6 | 0.378 | 15.9, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.756 | 0.538 | -0.299, 1.81 | 0.162 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.244 | 0.467 | -0.673, 1.16 | 0.604 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.200 | 0.661 | -1.10, 1.50 | 0.763 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.401 | 11.6, 13.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.779 | 0.571 | -0.341, 1.90 | 0.175 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.472 | 0.400 | -0.311, 1.26 | 0.242 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.060 | 0.566 | -1.17, 1.05 | 0.916 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.0 | 0.711 | 27.6, 30.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.54 | 1.013 | -0.451, 3.52 | 0.132 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.701 | 0.723 | -0.717, 2.12 | 0.336 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.143 | 1.023 | -1.86, 2.15 | 0.890 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 26.7 | 1.145 | 24.5, 29.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.544 | 1.631 | -3.74, 2.65 | 0.739 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.17 | 1.170 | -1.12, 3.46 | 0.321 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.43 | 1.656 | -6.68, -0.189 | 0.042 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 14.0 | 0.611 | 12.8, 15.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.796 | 0.871 | -0.910, 2.50 | 0.362 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.090 | 0.654 | -1.19, 1.37 | 0.891 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.816 | 0.925 | -0.997, 2.63 | 0.381 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.7 | 0.476 | 14.8, 16.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.645 | 0.678 | -0.684, 1.97 | 0.343 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.231 | 0.508 | -0.765, 1.23 | 0.650 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.022 | 0.719 | -1.43, 1.39 | 0.976 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.7 | 1.039 | 27.7, 31.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.44 | 1.479 | -1.46, 4.34 | 0.332 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.325 | 1.064 | -1.76, 2.41 | 0.761 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.775 | 1.505 | -2.18, 3.73 | 0.609 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.6 | 0.185 | 12.3, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.068 | 0.263 | -0.584, 0.448 | 0.796 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.027 | 0.287 | -0.535, 0.590 | 0.924 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.130 | 0.406 | -0.666, 0.926 | 0.750 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.7 | 0.412 | 13.9, 15.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.267 | 0.587 | -0.883, 1.42 | 0.650 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.199 | 0.576 | -0.929, 1.33 | 0.731 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.222 | 0.815 | -1.82, 1.37 | 0.786 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.4 | 0.496 | 12.4, 14.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.272 | 0.706 | -1.11, 1.66 | 0.701 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.210 | 0.616 | -0.998, 1.42 | 0.734 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.248 | 0.872 | -1.46, 1.96 | 0.777 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 28.1 | 0.822 | 26.5, 29.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.539 | 1.171 | -1.76, 2.83 | 0.646 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.416 | 1.050 | -1.64, 2.47 | 0.693 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.031 | 1.486 | -2.88, 2.94 | 0.983 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 19.0 | 0.507 | 18.0, 20.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.637 | 0.722 | -0.777, 2.05 | 0.379 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.245 | 0.538 | -0.810, 1.30 | 0.650 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.361 | 0.762 | -1.85, 1.13 | 0.637 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.5 | 0.296 | 13.9, 15.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.144 | 0.421 | -0.682, 0.970 | 0.732 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.061 | 0.436 | -0.916, 0.794 | 0.890 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.446 | 0.617 | -0.764, 1.66 | 0.472 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.0 | 0.374 | 11.2, 12.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.740 | 0.533 | -1.79, 0.305 | 0.167 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.307 | 0.444 | -1.18, 0.563 | 0.492 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.169 | 0.628 | -1.06, 1.40 | 0.789 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.0 | 0.415 | 9.21, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.217 | 0.591 | -1.38, 0.942 | 0.715 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.136 | 0.480 | -0.804, 1.08 | 0.777 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.14 | 0.679 | -2.47, 0.195 | 0.099 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 9.89 | 0.440 | 9.02, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.453 | 0.627 | -1.68, 0.777 | 0.472 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.016 | 0.518 | -1.03, 0.998 | 0.975 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.778 | 0.732 | -2.21, 0.657 | 0.292 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.24 | 0.439 | 7.38, 9.10 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.095 | 0.625 | -1.32, 1.13 | 0.880 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.686 | 0.525 | -0.343, 1.72 | 0.196 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.60 | 0.743 | -3.05, -0.139 | 0.035 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 28.2 | 1.200 | 25.8, 30.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.764 | 1.709 | -4.11, 2.59 | 0.656 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.727 | 1.280 | -1.78, 3.24 | 0.572 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.32 | 1.811 | -6.87, 0.231 | 0.071 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.31) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.27 (95% CI [3.00, 3.54], t(190) = 23.72, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.25], t(190) = -0.70, p = 0.485; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.61e-03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.45], t(190) = -6.99e-03, p = 0.994; Std. beta = -1.38e-03, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.10, 1.17], t(190) = 1.64, p = 0.101; Std. beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.01])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.44) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.80e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.90 (95% CI [17.24, 18.57], t(190) = 52.80, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.09], t(190) = 0.29, p = 0.769; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.41, 0.65], t(190) = -0.72, p = 0.472; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.57, 2.34], t(190) = 1.20, p = 0.232; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.82])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.83 (95% CI [28.62, 31.04], t(190) = 48.37, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-1.32, 2.12], t(190) = 0.46, p = 0.648; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.73, 2.12], t(190) = 0.95, p = 0.340; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.14, 95% CI [-0.87, 3.16], t(190) = 1.11, p = 0.266; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.61])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.66 (95% CI [11.17, 12.15], t(190) = 46.86, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.96], t(190) = 0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-1.06, 0.09], t(190) = -1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.10, 1.53], t(190) = 1.71, p = 0.087; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.74])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.14 (95% CI [16.41, 17.87], t(190) = 45.81, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.54], t(190) = 0.93, p = 0.351; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.41, 0.49], t(190) = -0.95, p = 0.340; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.15])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.63, 95% CI [0.29, 2.97], t(190) = 2.38, p = 0.017; Std. beta = 0.51, 95% CI [0.09, 0.94])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.99 (95% CI [12.31, 13.67], t(190) = 37.40, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.53, 1.40], t(190) = 0.88, p = 0.380; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.43, 1.10], t(190) = 0.85, p = 0.393; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [-0.05, 2.13], t(190) = 1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.72])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.17 (95% CI [9.62, 10.72], t(190) = 36.09, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-1.29, 0.28], t(190) = -1.25, p = 0.211; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.12])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-1.12, 0.48], t(190) = -0.79, p = 0.430; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.44, 95% CI [0.31, 2.57], t(190) = 2.50, p = 0.013; Std. beta = 0.61, 95% CI [0.13, 1.09])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.51e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.93 (95% CI [27.74, 32.12], t(190) = 26.82, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-3.02, 3.22], t(190) = 0.06, p = 0.950; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-2.45, 1.72], t(190) = -0.34, p = 0.731; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-4.23, 1.66], t(190) = -0.86, p = 0.392; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.18])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.56e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.85 (95% CI [21.73, 23.96], t(190) = 40.33, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-2.25, 0.91], t(190) = -0.83, p = 0.406; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.19])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.60, 0.91], t(190) = -0.54, p = 0.590; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-1.03, 2.52], t(190) = 0.82, p = 0.412; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.90 (95% CI [23.51, 26.30], t(190) = 35.02, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-1.38, 2.59], t(190) = 0.60, p = 0.550; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-2.42, 0.66], t(190) = -1.12, p = 0.262; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.11])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.55, 95% CI [-0.62, 3.73], t(190) = 1.40, p = 0.161; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.63])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.99 (95% CI [18.30, 21.67], t(190) = 23.22, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.20, 95% CI [-1.20, 3.61], t(190) = 0.98, p = 0.327; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-1.47, 2.58], t(190) = 0.54, p = 0.592; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-2.16, 3.57], t(190) = 0.48, p = 0.629; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.97e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.69 (95% CI [9.81, 11.57], t(190) = 23.76, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.74, 1.77], t(190) = 0.80, p = 0.424; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.22], t(190) = 0.56, p = 0.573; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.43, 1.26], t(190) = -0.12, p = 0.903; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.19e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.75 (95% CI [13.41, 16.09], t(190) = 21.57, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-1.23, 2.58], t(190) = 0.69, p = 0.489; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-1.00, 2.29], t(190) = 0.77, p = 0.443; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-2.46, 2.20], t(190) = -0.11, p = 0.915; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.21e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.80 (95% CI [20.25, 23.36], t(190) = 27.45, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.93, 2.50], t(190) = 0.25, p = 0.802; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.31], t(190) = 0.46, p = 0.642; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-2.40, 2.88], t(190) = 0.18, p = 0.860; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.25 (95% CI [15.18, 17.33], t(190) = 29.60, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [-0.66, 2.41], t(190) = 1.12, p = 0.262; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.46], t(190) = 0.16, p = 0.876; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.59, 95% CI [-0.32, 3.50], t(190) = 1.63, p = 0.103; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.76])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.11 (95% CI [12.44, 13.78], t(190) = 38.37, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.87], t(190) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.64])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-1.41, 0.36], t(190) = -1.16, p = 0.247; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.12])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.99], t(190) = 1.15, p = 0.252; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.68])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.59 (95% CI [15.85, 17.33], t(190) = 43.89, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.81], t(190) = 1.40, p = 0.160; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.57])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.16], t(190) = 0.52, p = 0.602; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-1.10, 1.50], t(190) = 0.30, p = 0.762; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.47])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.37 (95% CI [11.58, 13.15], t(190) = 30.83, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.90], t(190) = 1.36, p = 0.173; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.57])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.26], t(190) = 1.18, p = 0.237; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-1.17, 1.05], t(190) = -0.11, p = 0.915; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.96 (95% CI [27.56, 30.35], t(190) = 40.71, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.54, 95% CI [-0.45, 3.52], t(190) = 1.52, p = 0.130; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.59])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.72, 2.12], t(190) = 0.97, p = 0.332; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.86, 2.15], t(190) = 0.14, p = 0.889; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.36])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.73 (95% CI [24.49, 28.98], t(190) = 23.35, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-3.74, 2.65], t(190) = -0.33, p = 0.739; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [-1.12, 3.46], t(190) = 1.00, p = 0.317; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.43, 95% CI [-6.68, -0.19], t(190) = -2.07, p = 0.038; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.69, -0.02])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.97 (95% CI [12.77, 15.17], t(190) = 22.86, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.91, 2.50], t(190) = 0.91, p = 0.360; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-1.19, 1.37], t(190) = 0.14, p = 0.891; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-1.00, 2.63], t(190) = 0.88, p = 0.378; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.52])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.97e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.75 (95% CI [14.81, 16.68], t(190) = 33.08, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.97], t(190) = 0.95, p = 0.342; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.23], t(190) = 0.46, p = 0.649; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-1.43, 1.39], t(190) = -0.03, p = 0.976; Std. beta = -5.54e-03, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.72 (95% CI [27.68, 31.75], t(190) = 28.62, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.44, 95% CI [-1.46, 4.34], t(190) = 0.97, p = 0.330; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.76, 2.41], t(190) = 0.30, p = 0.760; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-2.18, 3.73], t(190) = 0.51, p = 0.607; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.43) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.17e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.65 (95% CI [12.29, 13.01], t(190) = 68.43, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.45], t(190) = -0.26, p = 0.796; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.29])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.59], t(190) = 0.10, p = 0.924; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.93], t(190) = 0.32, p = 0.748; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.61])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.21e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.70 (95% CI [13.90, 15.51], t(190) = 35.69, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.88, 1.42], t(190) = 0.45, p = 0.649; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.33], t(190) = 0.35, p = 0.730; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.82, 1.37], t(190) = -0.27, p = 0.785; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.40])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.19e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.38 (95% CI [12.41, 14.35], t(190) = 27.00, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-1.11, 1.66], t(190) = 0.39, p = 0.700; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.40])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-1.00, 1.42], t(190) = 0.34, p = 0.733; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-1.46, 1.96], t(190) = 0.28, p = 0.776; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.47])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.38e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.08 (95% CI [26.47, 29.70], t(190) = 34.16, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-1.76, 2.83], t(190) = 0.46, p = 0.646; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.41])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-1.64, 2.47], t(190) = 0.40, p = 0.692; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-2.88, 2.94], t(190) = 0.02, p = 0.983; Std. beta = 4.55e-03, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.33e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.97 (95% CI [17.98, 19.96], t(190) = 37.45, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.78, 2.05], t(190) = 0.88, p = 0.377; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.30], t(190) = 0.46, p = 0.649; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.85, 1.13], t(190) = -0.47, p = 0.635; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.49e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.48 (95% CI [13.90, 15.06], t(190) = 48.95, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.97], t(190) = 0.34, p = 0.732; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.79], t(190) = -0.14, p = 0.889; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.66], t(190) = 0.72, p = 0.470; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.66])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.96 (95% CI [11.22, 12.69], t(190) = 31.94, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.74, 95% CI [-1.79, 0.30], t(190) = -1.39, p = 0.165; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.10])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.18, 0.56], t(190) = -0.69, p = 0.489; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.40], t(190) = 0.27, p = 0.788; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.03 (95% CI [9.21, 10.84], t(190) = 24.16, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.38, 0.94], t(190) = -0.37, p = 0.714; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.26])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.08], t(190) = 0.28, p = 0.777; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.14, 95% CI [-2.47, 0.19], t(190) = -1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.05])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.89 (95% CI [9.02, 10.75], t(190) = 22.46, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.68, 0.78], t(190) = -0.72, p = 0.470; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-1.03, 1.00], t(190) = -0.03, p = 0.975; Std. beta = -4.36e-03, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.78, 95% CI [-2.21, 0.66], t(190) = -1.06, p = 0.288; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.17])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.24 (95% CI [7.38, 9.10], t(190) = 18.79, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-1.32, 1.13], t(190) = -0.15, p = 0.880; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.72], t(190) = 1.31, p = 0.191; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.46])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.60, 95% CI [-3.05, -0.14], t(190) = -2.15, p = 0.032; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.81, -0.04])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.15 (95% CI [25.80, 30.51], t(190) = 23.47, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.76, 95% CI [-4.11, 2.59], t(190) = -0.45, p = 0.655; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-1.78, 3.24], t(190) = 0.57, p = 0.570; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.32, 95% CI [-6.87, 0.23], t(190) = -1.83, p = 0.067; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.02])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 616.698 | 626.532 | -305.349 | 610.698 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 617.354 | 637.023 | -302.677 | 605.354 | 5.344 | 3 | 0.148 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 960.387 | 970.221 | -477.194 | 954.387 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 964.262 | 983.931 | -476.131 | 952.262 | 2.125 | 3 | 0.547 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 1,174.541 | 1,184.375 | -584.270 | 1,168.541 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 1,172.790 | 1,192.459 | -580.395 | 1,160.790 | 7.750 | 3 | 0.051 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 816.121 | 825.955 | -405.060 | 810.121 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 817.286 | 836.954 | -402.643 | 805.286 | 4.835 | 3 | 0.184 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 989.333 | 999.168 | -491.667 | 983.333 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 986.026 | 1,005.695 | -487.013 | 974.026 | 9.307 | 3 | 0.025 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 951.378 | 961.213 | -472.689 | 945.378 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 943.250 | 962.919 | -465.625 | 931.250 | 14.128 | 3 | 0.003 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 887.573 | 897.407 | -440.786 | 881.573 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 885.805 | 905.474 | -436.903 | 873.805 | 7.768 | 3 | 0.051 |
symptom | null | 3 | 1,379.382 | 1,389.216 | -686.691 | 1,373.382 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 1,382.815 | 1,402.483 | -685.407 | 1,370.815 | 2.567 | 3 | 0.463 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 1,130.139 | 1,139.973 | -562.069 | 1,124.139 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 1,135.018 | 1,154.687 | -561.509 | 1,123.018 | 1.121 | 3 | 0.772 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 1,218.710 | 1,228.544 | -606.355 | 1,212.710 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 1,221.761 | 1,241.430 | -604.881 | 1,209.761 | 2.949 | 3 | 0.400 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 1,302.408 | 1,312.243 | -648.204 | 1,296.408 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 1,305.271 | 1,324.939 | -646.635 | 1,293.271 | 3.138 | 3 | 0.371 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 1,034.739 | 1,044.573 | -514.369 | 1,028.739 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 1,039.616 | 1,059.284 | -513.808 | 1,027.616 | 1.123 | 3 | 0.771 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 1,212.811 | 1,222.646 | -603.406 | 1,206.811 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 1,217.338 | 1,237.007 | -602.669 | 1,205.338 | 1.473 | 3 | 0.688 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 1,268.526 | 1,278.361 | -631.263 | 1,262.526 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 1,273.684 | 1,293.353 | -630.842 | 1,261.684 | 0.842 | 3 | 0.839 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 1,135.893 | 1,145.728 | -564.947 | 1,129.893 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 1,133.339 | 1,153.007 | -560.669 | 1,121.339 | 8.555 | 3 | 0.036 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 954.219 | 964.054 | -474.110 | 948.219 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 953.222 | 972.891 | -470.611 | 941.222 | 6.997 | 3 | 0.072 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 983.306 | 993.140 | -488.653 | 977.306 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 985.696 | 1,005.365 | -486.848 | 973.696 | 3.610 | 3 | 0.307 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 984.987 | 994.821 | -489.493 | 978.987 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 986.587 | 1,006.256 | -487.294 | 974.587 | 4.400 | 3 | 0.221 |
els | null | 3 | 1,212.123 | 1,221.957 | -603.061 | 1,206.123 | |||
els | random | 6 | 1,213.260 | 1,232.929 | -600.630 | 1,201.260 | 4.863 | 3 | 0.182 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 1,399.809 | 1,409.643 | -696.905 | 1,393.809 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 1,400.432 | 1,420.101 | -694.216 | 1,388.432 | 5.377 | 3 | 0.146 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 1,156.408 | 1,166.243 | -575.204 | 1,150.408 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 1,159.101 | 1,178.770 | -573.551 | 1,147.101 | 3.307 | 3 | 0.347 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 1,056.258 | 1,066.093 | -525.129 | 1,050.258 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 1,060.926 | 1,080.594 | -524.463 | 1,048.926 | 1.333 | 3 | 0.721 |
shs | null | 3 | 1,358.855 | 1,368.690 | -676.428 | 1,352.855 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 1,362.416 | 1,382.084 | -675.208 | 1,350.416 | 2.440 | 3 | 0.486 |
esteem | null | 3 | 721.054 | 730.889 | -357.527 | 715.054 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 726.711 | 746.380 | -357.356 | 714.711 | 0.343 | 3 | 0.952 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 1,025.702 | 1,035.536 | -509.851 | 1,019.702 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 1,031.424 | 1,051.093 | -509.712 | 1,019.424 | 0.278 | 3 | 0.964 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 1,087.285 | 1,097.119 | -540.642 | 1,081.285 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 1,092.361 | 1,112.030 | -540.181 | 1,080.361 | 0.924 | 3 | 0.820 |
mlq | null | 3 | 1,288.193 | 1,298.028 | -641.097 | 1,282.193 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 1,293.602 | 1,313.271 | -640.801 | 1,281.602 | 0.591 | 3 | 0.898 |
empower | null | 3 | 1,079.726 | 1,089.560 | -536.863 | 1,073.726 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 1,084.823 | 1,104.492 | -536.411 | 1,072.823 | 0.903 | 3 | 0.825 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 901.763 | 911.598 | -447.882 | 895.763 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 906.542 | 926.211 | -447.271 | 894.542 | 1.221 | 3 | 0.748 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 974.086 | 983.920 | -484.043 | 968.086 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 977.622 | 997.290 | -482.811 | 965.622 | 2.464 | 3 | 0.482 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 1,014.579 | 1,024.413 | -504.290 | 1,008.579 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 1,015.455 | 1,035.123 | -501.727 | 1,003.455 | 5.124 | 3 | 0.163 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 1,037.733 | 1,047.567 | -515.866 | 1,031.733 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 1,040.286 | 1,059.955 | -514.143 | 1,028.286 | 3.447 | 3 | 0.328 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 1,039.950 | 1,049.784 | -516.975 | 1,033.950 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 1,040.662 | 1,060.330 | -514.331 | 1,028.662 | 5.288 | 3 | 0.152 |
sss | null | 3 | 1,422.495 | 1,432.329 | -708.247 | 1,416.495 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 1,423.240 | 1,442.909 | -705.620 | 1,411.240 | 5.255 | 3 | 0.154 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 71 | 3.27 ± 1.16 | 69 | 3.13 ± 1.16 | 0.485 | 0.141 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 28 | 3.27 ± 1.14 | 0.002 | 28 | 3.66 ± 1.14 | -0.550 | 0.193 | -0.410 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 71 | 17.90 ± 2.86 | 69 | 18.04 ± 2.86 | 0.769 | -0.066 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 28 | 17.52 ± 2.71 | 0.175 | 28 | 18.55 ± 2.72 | -0.237 | 0.157 | -0.478 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 71 | 29.83 ± 5.20 | 69 | 30.23 ± 5.20 | 0.649 | -0.140 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 28 | 30.52 ± 4.38 | -0.243 | 28 | 32.07 ± 4.39 | -0.644 | 0.189 | -0.541 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 71 | 11.66 ± 2.10 | 69 | 11.93 ± 2.10 | 0.455 | -0.230 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 28 | 11.18 ± 1.77 | 0.421 | 28 | 12.15 ± 1.78 | -0.196 | 0.040 | -0.847 |
ras_goal | 1st | 71 | 17.14 ± 3.15 | 69 | 17.64 ± 3.15 | 0.353 | -0.259 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 28 | 16.68 ± 2.76 | 0.240 | 28 | 18.80 ± 2.77 | -0.607 | 0.005 | -1.107 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 71 | 12.99 ± 2.93 | 69 | 13.42 ± 2.93 | 0.381 | -0.283 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 28 | 13.32 ± 2.42 | -0.218 | 28 | 14.80 ± 2.43 | -0.896 | 0.024 | -0.961 |
ras_domination | 1st | 71 | 10.17 ± 2.37 | 69 | 9.67 ± 2.37 | 0.212 | 0.304 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 28 | 9.85 ± 2.19 | 0.195 | 28 | 10.79 ± 2.19 | -0.678 | 0.111 | -0.568 |
symptom | 1st | 71 | 29.93 ± 9.40 | 69 | 30.03 ± 9.40 | 0.950 | -0.024 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 28 | 29.56 ± 7.31 | 0.089 | 28 | 28.38 ± 7.36 | 0.404 | 0.545 | 0.290 |
slof_work | 1st | 71 | 22.85 ± 4.77 | 69 | 22.17 ± 4.77 | 0.407 | 0.268 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 28 | 22.50 ± 3.95 | 0.138 | 28 | 22.57 ± 3.97 | -0.159 | 0.946 | -0.028 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 71 | 24.90 ± 5.99 | 69 | 25.51 ± 5.99 | 0.551 | -0.198 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 28 | 24.02 ± 4.91 | 0.287 | 28 | 26.18 ± 4.94 | -0.221 | 0.102 | -0.706 |
satisfaction | 1st | 71 | 19.99 ± 7.25 | 69 | 21.19 ± 7.25 | 0.328 | -0.296 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 28 | 20.54 ± 6.16 | -0.136 | 28 | 22.45 ± 6.18 | -0.310 | 0.249 | -0.469 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 71 | 10.69 ± 3.79 | 69 | 11.20 ± 3.79 | 0.425 | -0.272 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 28 | 10.96 ± 3.08 | -0.145 | 28 | 11.39 ± 3.09 | -0.101 | 0.603 | -0.228 |
mhc_social | 1st | 71 | 14.75 ± 5.76 | 69 | 15.42 ± 5.76 | 0.490 | -0.203 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 28 | 15.39 ± 4.94 | -0.194 | 28 | 15.94 ± 4.95 | -0.156 | 0.680 | -0.165 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 71 | 21.80 ± 6.69 | 69 | 22.09 ± 6.69 | 0.802 | -0.076 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 28 | 22.25 ± 5.68 | -0.118 | 28 | 22.77 ± 5.70 | -0.182 | 0.732 | -0.139 |
resilisnce | 1st | 71 | 16.25 ± 4.63 | 69 | 17.13 ± 4.63 | 0.264 | -0.322 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 28 | 16.36 ± 4.00 | -0.039 | 28 | 18.83 ± 4.01 | -0.624 | 0.022 | -0.907 |
social_provision | 1st | 71 | 13.11 ± 2.88 | 69 | 14.03 ± 2.88 | 0.062 | -0.507 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 28 | 12.59 ± 2.55 | 0.290 | 28 | 14.24 ± 2.56 | -0.116 | 0.017 | -0.913 |
els_value_living | 1st | 71 | 16.59 ± 3.18 | 69 | 17.35 ± 3.18 | 0.162 | -0.410 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 28 | 16.84 ± 2.74 | -0.132 | 28 | 17.79 ± 2.75 | -0.241 | 0.193 | -0.518 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 71 | 12.37 ± 3.38 | 69 | 13.14 ± 3.38 | 0.175 | -0.504 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 28 | 12.84 ± 2.67 | -0.306 | 28 | 13.56 ± 2.68 | -0.267 | 0.316 | -0.465 |
els | 1st | 71 | 28.96 ± 5.99 | 69 | 30.49 ± 5.99 | 0.132 | -0.548 | ||
els | 2nd | 28 | 29.66 ± 4.77 | -0.250 | 28 | 31.34 ± 4.79 | -0.301 | 0.191 | -0.599 |
social_connect | 1st | 71 | 26.73 ± 9.65 | 69 | 26.19 ± 9.65 | 0.739 | 0.120 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 28 | 27.90 ± 7.69 | -0.258 | 28 | 23.92 ± 7.73 | 0.499 | 0.055 | 0.878 |
shs_agency | 1st | 71 | 13.97 ± 5.15 | 69 | 14.77 ± 5.15 | 0.362 | -0.313 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 28 | 14.06 ± 4.17 | -0.035 | 28 | 15.67 ± 4.19 | -0.356 | 0.151 | -0.634 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 71 | 15.75 ± 4.01 | 69 | 16.39 ± 4.01 | 0.343 | -0.326 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 28 | 15.98 ± 3.25 | -0.117 | 28 | 16.60 ± 3.26 | -0.106 | 0.475 | -0.315 |
shs | 1st | 71 | 29.72 ± 8.75 | 69 | 31.16 ± 8.75 | 0.332 | -0.350 | ||
shs | 2nd | 28 | 30.04 ± 6.98 | -0.079 | 28 | 32.26 ± 7.02 | -0.267 | 0.238 | -0.538 |
esteem | 1st | 71 | 12.65 ± 1.56 | 69 | 12.58 ± 1.56 | 0.796 | 0.058 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 28 | 12.68 ± 1.48 | -0.023 | 28 | 12.74 ± 1.48 | -0.134 | 0.876 | -0.053 |
mlq_search | 1st | 71 | 14.70 ± 3.47 | 69 | 14.97 ± 3.47 | 0.650 | -0.115 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 28 | 14.90 ± 3.15 | -0.086 | 28 | 14.95 ± 3.16 | 0.010 | 0.958 | -0.019 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 71 | 13.38 ± 4.18 | 69 | 13.65 ± 4.18 | 0.701 | -0.112 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 28 | 13.59 ± 3.60 | -0.086 | 28 | 14.11 ± 3.61 | -0.188 | 0.590 | -0.214 |
mlq | 1st | 71 | 28.08 ± 6.93 | 69 | 28.62 ± 6.93 | 0.646 | -0.129 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 28 | 28.50 ± 6.04 | -0.100 | 28 | 29.07 ± 6.06 | -0.107 | 0.725 | -0.137 |
empower | 1st | 71 | 18.97 ± 4.27 | 69 | 19.61 ± 4.27 | 0.379 | -0.304 | ||
empower | 2nd | 28 | 19.22 ± 3.45 | -0.117 | 28 | 19.49 ± 3.47 | 0.056 | 0.766 | -0.132 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 71 | 14.48 ± 2.49 | 69 | 14.62 ± 2.49 | 0.732 | -0.081 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 28 | 14.42 ± 2.32 | 0.034 | 28 | 15.01 ± 2.32 | -0.217 | 0.342 | -0.333 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 71 | 11.96 ± 3.15 | 69 | 11.22 ± 3.15 | 0.167 | 0.425 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 28 | 11.65 ± 2.66 | 0.176 | 28 | 11.08 ± 2.67 | 0.079 | 0.424 | 0.328 |
sss_affective | 1st | 71 | 10.03 ± 3.50 | 69 | 9.81 ± 3.50 | 0.715 | 0.115 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 28 | 10.16 ± 2.92 | -0.072 | 28 | 8.81 ± 2.93 | 0.532 | 0.086 | 0.720 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 71 | 9.89 ± 3.71 | 69 | 9.43 ± 3.71 | 0.472 | 0.223 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 28 | 9.87 ± 3.12 | 0.008 | 28 | 8.64 ± 3.13 | 0.391 | 0.143 | 0.606 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 71 | 8.24 ± 3.70 | 69 | 8.14 ± 3.70 | 0.880 | 0.046 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 28 | 8.93 ± 3.13 | -0.332 | 28 | 7.24 ± 3.14 | 0.440 | 0.045 | 0.818 |
sss | 1st | 71 | 28.15 ± 10.11 | 69 | 27.39 ± 10.11 | 0.656 | 0.153 | ||
sss | 2nd | 28 | 28.88 ± 8.18 | -0.146 | 28 | 24.80 ± 8.23 | 0.521 | 0.064 | 0.820 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(183.08) = -0.70, p = 0.485, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.25)
2st
t(182.18) = 1.31, p = 0.193, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.00)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(175.18) = 0.29, p = 0.769, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.81 to 1.10)
2st
t(176.51) = 1.42, p = 0.157, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.40 to 2.46)
ras_confidence
1st
t(156.61) = 0.46, p = 0.649, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.33 to 2.14)
2st
t(179.91) = 1.32, p = 0.189, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.77 to 3.86)
ras_willingness
1st
t(156.72) = 0.75, p = 0.455, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.97)
2st
t(179.80) = 2.07, p = 0.040, Cohen d = -0.85, 95% CI (0.04 to 1.91)
ras_goal
1st
t(161.32) = 0.93, p = 0.353, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.56 to 1.55)
2st
t(176.12) = 2.87, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -1.11, 95% CI (0.66 to 3.58)
ras_reliance
1st
t(154.81) = 0.88, p = 0.381, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.41)
2st
t(181.98) = 2.27, p = 0.024, Cohen d = -0.96, 95% CI (0.19 to 2.76)
ras_domination
1st
t(169.26) = -1.25, p = 0.212, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.29 to 0.29)
2st
t(174.57) = 1.60, p = 0.111, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.22 to 2.09)
symptom
1st
t(149.18) = 0.06, p = 0.950, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-3.04 to 3.24)
2st
t(189.65) = -0.61, p = 0.545, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-5.05 to 2.68)
slof_work
1st
t(154.76) = -0.83, p = 0.407, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-2.27 to 0.92)
2st
t(182.05) = 0.07, p = 0.946, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.02 to 2.16)
slof_relationship
1st
t(153.83) = 0.60, p = 0.551, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.40 to 2.61)
2st
t(183.23) = 1.64, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (-0.44 to 4.76)
satisfaction
1st
t(157.45) = 0.98, p = 0.328, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.22 to 3.62)
2st
t(179.06) = 1.16, p = 0.249, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.34 to 5.16)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(152.92) = 0.80, p = 0.425, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.75 to 1.78)
2st
t(184.47) = 0.52, p = 0.603, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.20 to 2.06)
mhc_social
1st
t(158.61) = 0.69, p = 0.490, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.25 to 2.60)
2st
t(178.01) = 0.41, p = 0.680, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-2.06 to 3.15)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(157.41) = 0.25, p = 0.802, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.95 to 2.52)
2st
t(179.10) = 0.34, p = 0.732, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-2.48 to 3.52)
resilisnce
1st
t(159.61) = 1.12, p = 0.264, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.67 to 2.42)
2st
t(177.22) = 2.30, p = 0.022, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (0.35 to 4.58)
social_provision
1st
t(163.04) = 1.88, p = 0.062, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.04 to 1.88)
2st
t(175.30) = 2.42, p = 0.017, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (0.30 to 3.00)
els_value_living
1st
t(158.94) = 1.40, p = 0.162, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.82)
2st
t(177.74) = 1.31, p = 0.193, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.49 to 2.40)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(150.44) = 1.36, p = 0.175, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.91)
2st
t(187.96) = 1.00, p = 0.316, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.69 to 2.13)
els
1st
t(151.04) = 1.52, p = 0.132, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.47 to 3.54)
2st
t(187.12) = 1.31, p = 0.191, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-0.84 to 4.20)
social_connect
1st
t(151.20) = -0.33, p = 0.739, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-3.77 to 2.68)
2st
t(186.90) = -1.93, p = 0.055, Cohen d = 0.88, 95% CI (-8.04 to 0.09)
shs_agency
1st
t(152.70) = 0.91, p = 0.362, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.92 to 2.52)
2st
t(184.77) = 1.44, p = 0.151, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-0.59 to 3.82)
shs_pathway
1st
t(152.64) = 0.95, p = 0.343, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.69 to 1.98)
2st
t(184.86) = 0.72, p = 0.475, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-1.09 to 2.34)
shs
1st
t(151.27) = 0.97, p = 0.332, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-1.48 to 4.36)
2st
t(186.79) = 1.18, p = 0.238, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-1.47 to 5.91)
esteem
1st
t(175.48) = -0.26, p = 0.796, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.59 to 0.45)
2st
t(176.67) = 0.16, p = 0.876, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.72 to 0.84)
mlq_search
1st
t(166.55) = 0.45, p = 0.650, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.89 to 1.43)
2st
t(174.50) = 0.05, p = 0.958, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.62 to 1.71)
mlq_presence
1st
t(159.21) = 0.39, p = 0.701, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.12 to 1.67)
2st
t(177.53) = 0.54, p = 0.590, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.38 to 2.42)
mlq
1st
t(160.71) = 0.46, p = 0.646, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.77 to 2.85)
2st
t(176.47) = 0.35, p = 0.725, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-2.62 to 3.76)
empower
1st
t(152.47) = 0.88, p = 0.379, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.79 to 2.06)
2st
t(185.10) = 0.30, p = 0.766, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.55 to 2.10)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(170.83) = 0.34, p = 0.732, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.69 to 0.98)
2st
t(174.86) = 0.95, p = 0.342, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.81)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(156.82) = -1.39, p = 0.167, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-1.79 to 0.31)
2st
t(179.69) = -0.80, p = 0.424, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.98 to 0.84)
sss_affective
1st
t(155.70) = -0.37, p = 0.715, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.38 to 0.95)
2st
t(180.92) = -1.73, p = 0.086, Cohen d = 0.72, 95% CI (-2.90 to 0.19)
sss_behavior
1st
t(156.46) = -0.72, p = 0.472, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.69 to 0.79)
2st
t(180.07) = -1.47, p = 0.143, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-2.88 to 0.42)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(157.31) = -0.15, p = 0.880, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.33 to 1.14)
2st
t(179.20) = -2.01, p = 0.045, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-3.34 to -0.03)
sss
1st
t(152.60) = -0.45, p = 0.656, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-4.14 to 2.61)
2st
t(184.91) = -1.86, p = 0.064, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-8.41 to 0.24)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(92.88) = 2.29, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (0.07 to 1.00)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(82.72) = 0.97, p = 0.674, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.56)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(66.25) = 2.51, p = 0.029, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (0.38 to 3.30)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(66.33) = 0.77, p = 0.892, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.82)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(69.86) = 2.40, p = 0.039, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (0.20 to 2.13)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(64.94) = 3.49, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.90, 95% CI (0.59 to 2.16)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(76.72) = 2.72, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (0.30 to 1.94)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(61.03) = -1.55, p = 0.252, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-3.78 to 0.48)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(64.90) = 0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.89 to 1.68)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(64.24) = 0.86, p = 0.790, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.90 to 2.25)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(66.88) = 1.21, p = 0.459, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.81 to 3.33)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(63.59) = 0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.78 to 1.16)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(67.75) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.17 to 2.20)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(66.85) = 0.71, p = 0.960, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.23 to 2.59)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(68.52) = 2.45, p = 0.034, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.32 to 3.08)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(71.26) = 0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.12)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(68.00) = 0.94, p = 0.697, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.38)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(61.88) = 1.03, p = 0.617, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.21)
els
1st vs 2st
t(62.29) = 1.16, p = 0.499, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.61 to 2.30)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(62.40) = -1.93, p = 0.117, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-4.61 to 0.08)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(63.44) = 1.38, p = 0.345, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.22)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(63.39) = 0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.81 to 1.23)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(62.45) = 1.03, p = 0.615, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-1.04 to 3.23)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(83.05) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.73)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(74.25) = -0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.18 to 1.13)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(68.21) = 0.74, p = 0.925, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.78 to 1.69)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(69.39) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.66 to 2.56)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(63.28) = -0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.20 to 0.96)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(78.22) = 0.88, p = 0.766, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.26)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(66.41) = -0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.03 to 0.75)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(65.58) = -2.07, p = 0.084, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.96 to -0.04)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(66.14) = -1.53, p = 0.263, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-1.83 to 0.24)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(66.77) = -1.72, p = 0.179, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-1.96 to 0.14)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(63.37) = -2.02, p = 0.096, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-5.16 to -0.02)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(93.90) = -0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.46)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(83.44) = -0.71, p = 0.954, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.43 to 0.67)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(66.52) = 0.95, p = 0.691, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.76 to 2.15)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(66.61) = -1.64, p = 0.209, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-1.08 to 0.10)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(70.23) = -0.95, p = 0.691, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.43 to 0.51)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(65.18) = 0.85, p = 0.797, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.12)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(77.27) = -0.78, p = 0.872, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.14 to 0.50)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(61.18) = -0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.50 to 1.77)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(65.13) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.63 to 0.94)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(64.46) = -1.12, p = 0.537, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.45 to 0.69)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(67.16) = 0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.52 to 2.63)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(63.80) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.24)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(68.06) = 0.76, p = 0.896, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.04 to 2.33)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(67.13) = 0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.47 to 2.35)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(68.85) = 0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.27 to 1.49)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(71.66) = -1.15, p = 0.508, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.43 to 0.38)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(68.32) = 0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.69 to 1.18)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(62.05) = 1.18, p = 0.487, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.27)
els
1st vs 2st
t(62.47) = 0.97, p = 0.675, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.75 to 2.15)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(62.58) = 1.00, p = 0.645, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.18 to 3.52)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(63.64) = 0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.22 to 1.40)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(63.60) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.79 to 1.25)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(62.63) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.81 to 2.46)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(83.78) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.60)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(74.73) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.35)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(68.53) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.03 to 1.44)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(69.74) = 0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.69 to 2.52)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(63.48) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.83 to 1.32)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(78.81) = -0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.93 to 0.81)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(66.68) = -0.69, p = 0.987, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.20 to 0.58)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(65.83) = 0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.83 to 1.10)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(66.41) = -0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.05 to 1.02)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(67.05) = 1.30, p = 0.395, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.74)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(63.57) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.84 to 3.29)
Plot
